Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific (page 14)

cofty

I would argue that Agnosticism is the default position since we are born that way

I am not agnostic I am an atheist. Agnostics just need to think it through a bit more.

C0ntr013r

I am not agnostic I am an atheist. Agnostics just need to think it through a bit more.

Look at the chart, are you not Atheist and Agnostic?

_Morpheus

Oh good viv is here! And we upto page 14. I was worried we had slowed a bit

LoveUniHateExams

I would argue that Agnosticism is the default position since we are born that way

It could also be argued that since new-born babies do not believe in god, they are also born atheists.

Viviane

I was busy watching the RC commission, kids had camp this week, etc. Been busy :)

Look at the chart, are you not Atheist and Agnostic?

I am a functional atheist in general and specifically a strong atheist with any particular deity that anyone has attempted to define.

Viviane

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

It absolutely can be where there should be evidence.

C0ntr013r

It could also be argued that since new-born babies do not believe in god, they are also born atheists.

I don't think they entertain any belief at all, I don't think they believe in God and I don't think they disbelieve in God. They simply have no belief or opinion in the matter.

It is actually the same fallacy as discussed in the previous 5 pages, just like the opposite:

"since new-born babies do not disbelieve in god, they are also born Theists."

Viviane

"Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted"

That's not proof, that's suggestive information that we should go look for evidence. Proof only exists in math, but not everything math suggests is proof.

Viviane

Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation. The paper gained acceptance based upon the mathematics alone HOWEVER Einstein still had to wait for 1919 until Arthur Eddington verified it with the eclipse experiment. With no proof special relativity would have been discarded over time.

You're confusing mathematical proofs with "evidence for something".

C0ntr013r

It absolutely can be where there should be evidence.

I agree there are some exceptions to this rule.

A classical example:

"There is a elephant in the room." You see no elephant hence Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

"There is a fly in the room." You see no fly hence Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

Share this